“Danger lurks around every corner”: Fear of Crime and its Impact on Opportunities for Social Interaction in Stigmatised Australian Suburbs

Abstract

This article examines some of the ways in which fear of crime impacts upon opportunities for social interaction among residents in stigmatised suburbs. As we explore in this article, neighbourhoods that are stigmatised by virtue of material disadvantage and poor reputations tend to be associated with a number of social problems, including higher rates of crime. This association with crime, our research suggests, has an impact on social interaction in these neighbourhoods. Specifically, fear of crime may make people less likely to draw on forms of social interaction which enable people to build trust through contact with their fellow residents. In developing this position, the article draws on qualitative data detailing residents' perceptions of safety in three neighbourhoods in Adelaide, South Australia, two of which are stigmatised as ‘problem neighbourhoods’. The article concludes by considering the public policy implications that arise from the research.

Keywords:

• Fear of crime
• stigma
• suburbs
• public housing
• social interaction

Notes

1. Social disorganisation is defined as the “inability of a community structure to realize the common values of its residents and maintain effective social controls” (Sampson & Groves, 1989 in Kawachi et al., 1999).

2. Local opportunity structures are “the socially constructed and socially patterned features of the physical and social environment which may promote health either directly or indirectly through the possibility they provide for people to live healthy lives” (Macintyre & Ellaway, 2000, p. 343).

3. All of the following data come from the Australian Census 2001, Australian Bureau of Statistics. To ensure anonymity when releasing data at smaller aggregations, the Australian Bureau of Statistics randomly alters some Census information slightly. This means that overall totals, for example, for the population or number of dwellings, can vary slightly. Percentages may also not add up to 100 due to rounding.

4. Pseudonyms are used to preserve the anonymity of respondents.

5. This stereotyping of those with metnal illness as “dangerous, incompetent and blameful” is noted in Watson et al. (2003, p. 142).